Thornhill v. Alabama

Supreme Court of United States
310 U.S. 88 (1940)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute that broadly prohibits all peaceful labor picketing is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

A labor union, representing nearly all employees of the Brown Wood Preserving Company, initiated a strike.
Following the strike order, the union maintained a picket line with six to eight men at each of two posts, twenty-four hours a day, around the company's plant.
Byron Thornhill, a union member, was present on the picket line with several other men.
When Clarence Simpson, a non-union employee, reported to the plant for work, Thornhill approached him.
Thornhill told Simpson in a peaceful manner that a strike was in progress and that the union did not want anyone to go to work.
Thornhill did not threaten Simpson or cause him to feel fear.
After the conversation with Thornhill, Simpson turned around and went home instead of reporting to work.
Thornhill was subsequently arrested for his participation in the picket line.

Procedural Posture:

Byron Thornhill was convicted in the Inferior Court of Tuscaloosa County for violating Alabama Code § 3448.
Thornhill appealed to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County for a trial de novo.
In the Circuit Court, Thornhill's motion to exclude testimony on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional was overruled, and he was found guilty.
Thornhill, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Alabama Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, upholding the constitutionality of the statute.
The Supreme Court of Alabama denied Thornhill's petition for a writ of certiorari.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an Alabama statute that forbids any person from loitering or picketing near a place of business for the purpose of influencing others not to have business dealings with it violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of freedom of speech?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Murphy

Yes, the Alabama statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of freedom of speech. Peaceful picketing to publicize the facts of a labor dispute is a form of expression protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech. The court reasoned that the dissemination of information concerning labor disputes is essential for an informed public and the functioning of a democratic society, as labor relations are a matter of significant public concern. The Alabama statute was found to be facially invalid because it was overly broad, sweeping within its prohibitions nearly every practical and effective means by which workers could publicize their grievances. Abridgment of such fundamental liberties can only be justified by a clear and present danger of substantive evils, and the court held that the potential for injury to a business from peaceful picketing was not so serious or imminent as to justify such a sweeping proscription of free discussion.

Dissenting - Justice McReynolds

No. Justice McReynolds stated without a written opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.

Analysis:

This landmark case established that peaceful labor picketing is a form of constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. It applied the overbreadth doctrine, striking down the statute on its face because its wide-ranging prohibitions could chill the protected speech of others, not just the specific conduct of the defendant. While later Supreme Court decisions would narrow the scope of this protection, allowing for regulation of picketing that involves violence or is conducted for an unlawful purpose, Thornhill remains the foundational precedent for treating peaceful picketing as expressive conduct that states cannot completely ban.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature